↓ Skip to main content

Vertebral body osteonecrosis: proposal of a treatment-oriented classification system

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Vertebral body osteonecrosis: proposal of a treatment-oriented classification system
Published in
European Spine Journal, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5600-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Formica, Andrea Zanirato, Luca Cavagnaro, Marco Basso, Stefano Divano, Claudio Lamartina, Pedro Berjano, Lamberto Felli, Carlo Formica

Abstract

To present a classification system for vertebral body osteonecrosis (VBON) based on imaging findings and sagittal alignment and consequently to propose treatment guidelines. Chart review and classification of imaging and clinical findings. An analysis of literature about VBON has been evaluated to conceive the classification. The current data allows to correlate radiological findings with different stages of the pathophysiological process and consequently to propose a patient-tailored treatment plan. The classification identifies 4 stages: stage 0 (theoretical phase), stage 1 (early phase), stage 2 (instability phase) and stage 3 (fixed deformity phase). Local (angular kyphosis expressed as anterior-posterior wall height ratio) and global (sagittal vertical axis and pelvic tilt) sagittal alignment are considered as complementary modifiers to tailor the most suitable treatment. Stage 1 is generally managed conservatively. Stage 2 and 3 often require different surgical approaches according to local and global sagittal alignment. The classification allows a systematic staging of this disease and can help establish a proper and patient-oriented treatment plan. Further researches are advocated to fully validate the proposed classification system. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 8 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,603,172
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,504
of 4,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,149
of 296,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#28
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.